I met JPB briefly once, after he spoke at a San Francisco tech conference in the mid '90s. He was a particularly charismatic man.
We were so hyped up about the internet in those days. He predicted that we were witnesses of the extinction of the authoritarian state at the hands of the people armed with this new tool. But were also locked in the closet with a dying dinosaur, and that's not a safe place to be.
Thirty years later the dinosaur still looks uncomfortably healthy to me, but the closet is still shrinking.
I'm sure he was charismatic. So reputedly is Scott Siskind. Both have authored a lot of entertaining predictions. Each is or was so far as I know many things himself, but neither has ever even remotely approached the knowledge to practice even as a novice technologist. Windbags the both of them, in other words.
I respect some of his work, but none that lay in the vein you describe. To speak of a nonexistent territory's sovereignty, when it is solely "inhabited" by machines and people with physical names and addresses, is absurd and risible. Indeed Barlow's entire ignorant, ideologically propagandistic identitarian grift - an early precursor and lineal ancestor of Cliven Bundy and "sovereign citizens"/"freemen on the land"/"Qanon" alike - is in my view directly culpable for much of same and much else destructive about the accidents of the technology's development to date.
And what he produced that does have merit, so far as I can tell, as here lacks all originality.
Isn’t that pursuing happiness? Your saying if you’re not happy than change your goals to something with happiness as a by product. Or, pursue happiness.
Pursuing happiness means you use happiness as a leading indicator (I think). You do things that you predict will make you happy. This is commonly preyed upon by advertising, sales, managers, bosses, etc.
I’m suggesting you use happiness as a trailing indicator instead.
Pursue other goals and happiness comes on its own. If you perceive yourself to be unhappy over a long period, that is a symptom and you should look for underlying causes then go fix those. You pursue fixing the causes, not the happiness.
See also: once a metric becomes the goal, it stops being useful.
To use a silly analogy: No amount of painkillers will fix a broken leg.
Or to share an example – I once got into gratitude journaling and mindfulness stuff. It kinda helped. You know what really helped? Quitting my job and getting a job I enjoyed. No mindfulness or gratitude journaling needed. Feeling like I need a gratitude journal was the symptom that something’s gotta change.
> Researchers have now found that people who pursue happiness often feel like they do not have enough time in the day, and this paradoxically makes them feel unhappy.
I wonder about the "never lie" bit. Any kind of negotiation comes to mind, where it might be best to not show your hand completely. You might be negotiating for your family, for your business, for your country even. Is it ok to accept a worse result in the name of honesty as a principle?
Sure the world might be a better place if everyone told the truth always. But this is advice for this world, not a hypothetical one.
I wouldn't worry about taking every single one of these literally. A rule like this is meant as a compass bearing, not a precise set of directions to a perfect life.
Besides, it's totally possible to negotiate in good faith without lying. Professional negotiators actively advise against lying because A) you might get caught B) it's harder to remember a lie than the truth later on. (This is how a lot of criminals get caught.) If someone wants to know something you don't want them to know, you don't have to answer. Tell them it's not relevant or change the topic.
I feel that "don't lie, just omit the truth" totally misses the point. It's "rules lawyering", not being an adult as the author seems to envision it. At least that's my reading.
So, lie then, is what you should do instead of lying, in order to have a good faith negotiation.
Ps a lot of corporations commit crimes. They are professional liars, they don’t lose track and when they do get caught (hardly anyone is looking), they pay a fine and do it again.“Cost of doing business” if you will. Plus your common criminal usually isn’t able to get politicians elected by contributing hundred of millions to their campaigns, etc.
> Any kind of negotiation comes to mind, where it might be best to not show your hand completely.
There’s a big difference between lying and not revealing information that works against you.
In (American) courtroom terms it’s the difference between perjury or invoking the 5th amendment.
Some people feel obligated to provide an answer when asked a question, rather than tactfully declining to answer or changing the subject. It stems from a desire to be polite or please the other party. Ironically this desire to please or be polite leads those people to tell lies because they feel like they won’t get caught.
Skilled negotiators can be very good at identifying when someone is lying. Far more than the average person would guess. I did hundreds or thousands of interviews and after a while many lies stuck out like a sore thumb. I have no doubt that some people slipped lies past me, but most often when I had an inkling someone was lying I could confirm they were lying with some further questions or basic research online.
Once that trust is lost, everything is in question.
My personal mantra for these things is that life is simple [1] when you have only one principle. It gets much harder when you have to balance two or more principles.
It’s still better to have the principles than not have them, just keep balance in mind.
[1] for you, that is. People who don’t share your principles might not like your choices and you might be making their life difficult with your lack of balance. See religion, politics, etc.
Given the context of the list I suspect they don’t mean any of them quite as strictly as you’re taking it. Of course there are situations where lying is actually is morally correct. However I do think that many situations where one is tempted to lie simply omitting information is equally effective, or even more so as you don’t have to worry about being caught in the lie.
Negotiations are made because each party is trying to gain as much as possible while losing as little as possible. In order for that to happen each side lies about their standing, their offer, their range, and uses a bunch of dishonest and manipulative tactics to reach an agreement.
If all parties were honest then a negotiation wouldn’t need to take place.
Point #2: Say nothing behind another's back you'd be unwilling to say,
in exactly the same tone and language, to his face.
This has essentially been shut down in the modern corporate workplace, at least in the Anglosphere. The overpolite "be nice, be respectful" culture punishes anything that can be construed as "not nice", forcing it to go unsaid or at least pushing it underground. We talk in code and euphemisms about these things. You are justified in avoiding any kind of negativity entirely to protect your income. The net result is everybody loses a little.
> 6. Expect no more of anyone than you yourself can deliver.
This one probably requires the most nuance. Certainly in your adult life you need to allow yourself to delegate to others and trust that others are better than you at certain things.
From an emotional standpoint its good advice. You shouldn't expect to get more than you give from a relationship, etc.
In Canada we keep it simple. You have to reach 18 years of age and then all your behaviour is adult behaviour from that point forward. There's nothing else to it.
I don't think this is meant as a test to determine whether someone is an adult. I think this is meant as a guide to how to conduct yourself once you realize that you are an adult.
That's not true about age of consent nor is it universally true in Canada for legal drinking or smoking age or being tried as an adult. You can vote, marry and join the military at 18 however.
"Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."
People were up in arms about it because it's unworkable as a code of conduct for an open-source project.
Codes of conduct are specific, enforceable standards of professional conduct that apply to all contributors to a project that cover things like appropriate language and behavior in project spaces, equity and respect towards other community members, and especially, protecting members of marginalized communities from further marginalization or discrimination. They contain specific procedures for raising complaints (as well as protecting the complainants from retaliation), determining responsibility, and meting out disciplinary action.
The SQLite Code of Ethics is vague, can't be reasonably enforced, and its authors declared no intention to enforce it. No means of raising a complaint of a Code of Ethics violation is provided, nor is there an establishment of a committee or process to adjudicate complaints and administer disciplinary action. It is, per its authors again, merely a symbolic gesture. Furthermore, being a Christian seems to be a requirement to be in compliance.
So you can understand why people might be "up in arms" about it.
Assuming you're not being disingenuous, and that's a big if given your word choice ("a certain code of Ethics") and ellipsis, why do you think people were up in arms? What do you think is the core difference between Barlow's list and the one from sqlite?
Taken literally - any sport where the goal is to injure the other. I believe the context here is mostly metaphorical - ie: don't engage in activities whose goal is to injure (physically or otherwise) another.
Historically that would have been animal fighting or hunting. It’s a euphemism for death rather than injury. Today some people interpret it more literally and include any sport where injury is expected. Which is to say, pugilism.
I read that and thought of zero-sum winner take all pursuits that are more performance than achievement. Office politics, trash talking in earnest, picking sides in conflicts that don't involve me, etc.
Sporting for the sake of blood, not for any kind gain. Metaphorical fox hunts if you will.
I'd love to go through similar lists this site's users have made or found, which they swear by and which they would highly recommend to their younger selves.
Here is something I have started (WIP):
You move from rigid linearity (that the world projects) to fluid experimentation.
1. From your reptilian instinct (Response 1, i.e. fear and other emotional reactions) against change and situations, move to awareness and excitement (Response 2, witness and deliberate action). Free yourself from the need to control the outcome, focus on the play. Be curious and imaginative!
2. Fixed ladders wrong, Growth loops right. There are no fixed objectives and no set paths. Everything is in the present, and all goals are mutable. Live and grow with active observation, don't try to be a cautious zombie. It is not in your nature.
3. Focus on outcomes wrong, Focus on processes right. Progress is incremental experimentation. Directions get revealed and success unfolds as we move. Don't try to be perfect (you don't even know what that is) at any stage. Just do.
The only thing here I would take issue with is neglecting outcomes. The outcomes of our behaviors are what define them as good or bad, not the intent. Many atrocities have been committed by people who believed they had "good intentions." This wisdom is found elsewhere in phrases such as "the outcome is the intent," "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," and "you shall know a tree by its fruits."
This will get down voted, but a lot of this is mostly cliff notes from things like Sermon on the Mount. We are mostly godless here on HN, so I suppose the message has to be carried via agnostic vehicles.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
A sermon (supposedly) by a guy who said he's going to cast most of humanity into a lake of fire for all eternity, and cribbing many of his greatest hits from those who can before. Not a fan of sources that revel in the idea of the Torment Nexus.
> Never lie to anyone for any reason.
This always makes me think of:
“Are there Jews hiding nearby?” “Why yes, I’ve been hiding them for a long time, but nobody had thought to ask. I’m sorry to give them up but I cannot lie.”
Such an answer to someone like the Gestapo would give up your friends - they would not be so easily thrown off. The question is if an absolute like that outweighs, say, the life of others; your only chance to save them is to lie directly for them. Do you do it?
It wasn’t a shit post, it was an example from a philosophy class I took decades ago that stuck with me.
I believe we were discussing Kant at the time, who did hold that such a lie (even to save the lives of others) was not a positive good, but I found that extremely unsatisfying answer I could not agree with. Then again it’s been enough decades for the details to be fuzzy.
I met JPB briefly once, after he spoke at a San Francisco tech conference in the mid '90s. He was a particularly charismatic man.
We were so hyped up about the internet in those days. He predicted that we were witnesses of the extinction of the authoritarian state at the hands of the people armed with this new tool. But were also locked in the closet with a dying dinosaur, and that's not a safe place to be.
Thirty years later the dinosaur still looks uncomfortably healthy to me, but the closet is still shrinking.
I'm sure he was charismatic. So reputedly is Scott Siskind. Both have authored a lot of entertaining predictions. Each is or was so far as I know many things himself, but neither has ever even remotely approached the knowledge to practice even as a novice technologist. Windbags the both of them, in other words.
I respect some of his work, but none that lay in the vein you describe. To speak of a nonexistent territory's sovereignty, when it is solely "inhabited" by machines and people with physical names and addresses, is absurd and risible. Indeed Barlow's entire ignorant, ideologically propagandistic identitarian grift - an early precursor and lineal ancestor of Cliven Bundy and "sovereign citizens"/"freemen on the land"/"Qanon" alike - is in my view directly culpable for much of same and much else destructive about the accidents of the technology's development to date.
And what he produced that does have merit, so far as I can tell, as here lacks all originality.
> 15. Avoid the pursuit of happiness. Seek to define your mission and pursue that
Well put. Happiness is a byproduct not a goal. Lack of happiness can be a signal to change things up.
Isn’t that pursuing happiness? Your saying if you’re not happy than change your goals to something with happiness as a by product. Or, pursue happiness.
There’s a nuance here that matters.
Pursuing happiness means you use happiness as a leading indicator (I think). You do things that you predict will make you happy. This is commonly preyed upon by advertising, sales, managers, bosses, etc.
I’m suggesting you use happiness as a trailing indicator instead.
Pursue other goals and happiness comes on its own. If you perceive yourself to be unhappy over a long period, that is a symptom and you should look for underlying causes then go fix those. You pursue fixing the causes, not the happiness.
See also: once a metric becomes the goal, it stops being useful.
To use a silly analogy: No amount of painkillers will fix a broken leg.
Or to share an example – I once got into gratitude journaling and mindfulness stuff. It kinda helped. You know what really helped? Quitting my job and getting a job I enjoyed. No mindfulness or gratitude journaling needed. Feeling like I need a gratitude journal was the symptom that something’s gotta change.
FWIW there’s evidence around this:
> Researchers have now found that people who pursue happiness often feel like they do not have enough time in the day, and this paradoxically makes them feel unhappy.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180312104036.h...
I wonder about the "never lie" bit. Any kind of negotiation comes to mind, where it might be best to not show your hand completely. You might be negotiating for your family, for your business, for your country even. Is it ok to accept a worse result in the name of honesty as a principle?
Sure the world might be a better place if everyone told the truth always. But this is advice for this world, not a hypothetical one.
I wouldn't worry about taking every single one of these literally. A rule like this is meant as a compass bearing, not a precise set of directions to a perfect life.
Besides, it's totally possible to negotiate in good faith without lying. Professional negotiators actively advise against lying because A) you might get caught B) it's harder to remember a lie than the truth later on. (This is how a lot of criminals get caught.) If someone wants to know something you don't want them to know, you don't have to answer. Tell them it's not relevant or change the topic.
I feel that "don't lie, just omit the truth" totally misses the point. It's "rules lawyering", not being an adult as the author seems to envision it. At least that's my reading.
> Tell them it's not relevant
So, lie then, is what you should do instead of lying, in order to have a good faith negotiation.
Ps a lot of corporations commit crimes. They are professional liars, they don’t lose track and when they do get caught (hardly anyone is looking), they pay a fine and do it again.“Cost of doing business” if you will. Plus your common criminal usually isn’t able to get politicians elected by contributing hundred of millions to their campaigns, etc.
> Any kind of negotiation comes to mind, where it might be best to not show your hand completely.
There’s a big difference between lying and not revealing information that works against you.
In (American) courtroom terms it’s the difference between perjury or invoking the 5th amendment.
Some people feel obligated to provide an answer when asked a question, rather than tactfully declining to answer or changing the subject. It stems from a desire to be polite or please the other party. Ironically this desire to please or be polite leads those people to tell lies because they feel like they won’t get caught.
Skilled negotiators can be very good at identifying when someone is lying. Far more than the average person would guess. I did hundreds or thousands of interviews and after a while many lies stuck out like a sore thumb. I have no doubt that some people slipped lies past me, but most often when I had an inkling someone was lying I could confirm they were lying with some further questions or basic research online.
Once that trust is lost, everything is in question.
My personal mantra for these things is that life is simple [1] when you have only one principle. It gets much harder when you have to balance two or more principles.
It’s still better to have the principles than not have them, just keep balance in mind.
[1] for you, that is. People who don’t share your principles might not like your choices and you might be making their life difficult with your lack of balance. See religion, politics, etc.
Given the context of the list I suspect they don’t mean any of them quite as strictly as you’re taking it. Of course there are situations where lying is actually is morally correct. However I do think that many situations where one is tempted to lie simply omitting information is equally effective, or even more so as you don’t have to worry about being caught in the lie.
I've seen a version that adds "lies of omission are sometimes exempt":
https://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Jan-21.html
Don’t lie, unless you sometimes have to lie.
Totally tracks
One is always selecting from a subset of the available information is any conversation.
Maybe the point could be elaborated "never mislead".
As a parent, while I don't want my children to grow up in a shoebox, I also don't want them awash in the hedonistic filth of our day, either.
So I tell them "form follows function" and express the importance of actual marriage, not the modern variations.
Negotiations are made because each party is trying to gain as much as possible while losing as little as possible. In order for that to happen each side lies about their standing, their offer, their range, and uses a bunch of dishonest and manipulative tactics to reach an agreement.
If all parties were honest then a negotiation wouldn’t need to take place.
A corralary to number 5 might be: 'don't pretend that something is out of your control, when that is really not the case'.
Point #2: Say nothing behind another's back you'd be unwilling to say, in exactly the same tone and language, to his face.
This has essentially been shut down in the modern corporate workplace, at least in the Anglosphere. The overpolite "be nice, be respectful" culture punishes anything that can be construed as "not nice", forcing it to go unsaid or at least pushing it underground. We talk in code and euphemisms about these things. You are justified in avoiding any kind of negativity entirely to protect your income. The net result is everybody loses a little.
In case it's slow to load for others: https://web.archive.org/web/20250426185806/https://www.mail-...
I don't quite fully agree with these, but I agree with the general spirit.
> 6. Expect no more of anyone than you yourself can deliver.
This one probably requires the most nuance. Certainly in your adult life you need to allow yourself to delegate to others and trust that others are better than you at certain things.
From an emotional standpoint its good advice. You shouldn't expect to get more than you give from a relationship, etc.
It's a good list. As I grow older, I find myself adopting similar standards for myself that would have seemed strange to a younger version of myself.
In Canada we keep it simple. You have to reach 18 years of age and then all your behaviour is adult behaviour from that point forward. There's nothing else to it.
I don't think this is meant as a test to determine whether someone is an adult. I think this is meant as a guide to how to conduct yourself once you realize that you are an adult.
That's not true about age of consent nor is it universally true in Canada for legal drinking or smoking age or being tried as an adult. You can vote, marry and join the military at 18 however.
"Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."
by Max Ehrmann ©1927
This seems to overlap quite strongly with a certain Code of Ethics[1] that people were up in arms about not too long ago...
[1] https://www.sqlite.org/codeofethics.html
People were up in arms about it because it's unworkable as a code of conduct for an open-source project.
Codes of conduct are specific, enforceable standards of professional conduct that apply to all contributors to a project that cover things like appropriate language and behavior in project spaces, equity and respect towards other community members, and especially, protecting members of marginalized communities from further marginalization or discrimination. They contain specific procedures for raising complaints (as well as protecting the complainants from retaliation), determining responsibility, and meting out disciplinary action.
The SQLite Code of Ethics is vague, can't be reasonably enforced, and its authors declared no intention to enforce it. No means of raising a complaint of a Code of Ethics violation is provided, nor is there an establishment of a committee or process to adjudicate complaints and administer disciplinary action. It is, per its authors again, merely a symbolic gesture. Furthermore, being a Christian seems to be a requirement to be in compliance.
So you can understand why people might be "up in arms" about it.
Assuming you're not being disingenuous, and that's a big if given your word choice ("a certain code of Ethics") and ellipsis, why do you think people were up in arms? What do you think is the core difference between Barlow's list and the one from sqlite?
I'm curious what it means to give up blood sports
Taken literally - any sport where the goal is to injure the other. I believe the context here is mostly metaphorical - ie: don't engage in activities whose goal is to injure (physically or otherwise) another.
It's from 1977, so probably dinosaur hunting
Historically that would have been animal fighting or hunting. It’s a euphemism for death rather than injury. Today some people interpret it more literally and include any sport where injury is expected. Which is to say, pugilism.
I read that and thought of zero-sum winner take all pursuits that are more performance than achievement. Office politics, trash talking in earnest, picking sides in conflicts that don't involve me, etc.
Sporting for the sake of blood, not for any kind gain. Metaphorical fox hunts if you will.
Boxing in all its forms. Hunting animals. Rollerball. Fight soccer. Naked fencing.
That sort of thing.
Is that fight and soccer? Cause I couldn’t find a sport called fight soccer.
I'd love to go through similar lists this site's users have made or found, which they swear by and which they would highly recommend to their younger selves.
Here is something I have started (WIP):
The only thing here I would take issue with is neglecting outcomes. The outcomes of our behaviors are what define them as good or bad, not the intent. Many atrocities have been committed by people who believed they had "good intentions." This wisdom is found elsewhere in phrases such as "the outcome is the intent," "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," and "you shall know a tree by its fruits."
The Hug of Death strikes again!
Here's an archive link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110209100703/https://www.mail-...
At last, something of quality such as to redeem what I assume was his far prior, and exactly as effectual as ignorant and silly, "Declaration."
This will get down voted, but a lot of this is mostly cliff notes from things like Sermon on the Mount. We are mostly godless here on HN, so I suppose the message has to be carried via agnostic vehicles.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7&v...
It's all kind of in there, here's a piece I like:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
A sermon (supposedly) by a guy who said he's going to cast most of humanity into a lake of fire for all eternity, and cribbing many of his greatest hits from those who can before. Not a fan of sources that revel in the idea of the Torment Nexus.
> Never lie to anyone for any reason. This always makes me think of: “Are there Jews hiding nearby?” “Why yes, I’ve been hiding them for a long time, but nobody had thought to ask. I’m sorry to give them up but I cannot lie.”
you don’t have to answer them. You can just not say anything. A thing you should have done instead of shit posting.
Such an answer to someone like the Gestapo would give up your friends - they would not be so easily thrown off. The question is if an absolute like that outweighs, say, the life of others; your only chance to save them is to lie directly for them. Do you do it?
It wasn’t a shit post, it was an example from a philosophy class I took decades ago that stuck with me.
I believe we were discussing Kant at the time, who did hold that such a lie (even to save the lives of others) was not a positive good, but I found that extremely unsatisfying answer I could not agree with. Then again it’s been enough decades for the details to be fuzzy.